Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32399133›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of stem cells2020

Bone marrow-derived products: A classification proposal - bone marrow aspirate, bone marrow aspirate concentrate or hybrid?

Joseph Purita, José Fábio Santos Duarte Lana, Morey Kolber, Bruno Lima Rodrigues, Tomas Mosaner, Gabriel Silva Santos, Carolina Caliari-Oliveira, Stephany Cares Huber

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of stem cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Stromal Vascular Fraction for Knee Osteoarthritis - An Update.Journal of stem cells & regenerative medicine · 2022
    Review
  20. Bone Marrow Aspirate Matrix: A Convenient Ally in Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph PuritaInstitute of Regenerative Medicine, Boca Raton, FL 33432, United States.
José Fábio Santos Duarte LanaInstitute of Bone and Cartilage, Indaiatuba, SP 13334-170, Brazil. josefabiolana@gmail.com.
Morey KolberDepartment of Physical Therapy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, United States.
Bruno Lima RodriguesUniversity of Campinas, Campinas, SP 13083-970, Brazil.
Tomas MosanerInstitute of Bone and Cartilage, Indaiatuba, SP 13334-170, Brazil.
Gabriel Silva SantosInstitute of Bone and Cartilage, Indaiatuba, SP 13334-170, Brazil.
Carolina Caliari-OliveiraIn Situ Cell Therapy, Ribeirão Preto, SP 14056-680, Brazil.
Stephany Cares HuberUniversity of Campinas, Campinas, SP 13083-970, Brazil.
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine · USUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRNova Southeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Degenerative musculoskeletal disorders are one of the top causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Current available alternatives to mitigate symptoms include conservative treatments such as the administration of pharmacological agents and an educative approach towards lifestyle modification. The use of certain analgesics, such as opiates and corticosteroids, delivers short term results but do not address the etiological source of pain and disability. Also, prolonged use of such medications may cause additional complications. Therefore, the demand for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration has led to an alternative approach referred to as "orthobiologics". This alternative is based on cellular and molecular components capable of inducing and promoting tissue repair. Bone marrow (BM) aspirate (BMA) and concentrate are well-known orthobiologics used to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Orthobiologics derived from the BM have been discussed in the literature; however, the lack of standardization regarding collection and processing protocols presents a challenge for generalization of study outcomes and determination of efficacy. Since BM-derived orthobiologics have not yet been classified, to our knowledge, this manuscript proposes the ACH classification system, which speaks to BMA (A), BMA and concentrate (C) and hybrid (H), which combines A and C. This classification proposes and describes 8 parameters that are relevant for the quality of biological products. The more parameters used would imply greater characterization and complexity of the evaluation of the biological product used. The ACH classification envisages a necessary contribution to the comprehension of both clinical procedures and research outcomes, ultimately ushering in a standardization of best practice.

Indexed as

Bone-marrow aspirate concentrateBone-marrow classificationMusculoskeletal disordersOrthobiologicsRegenerative medicineStem cells

Identifiers

PMID32399133
PMCPMC7202927
OpenAlexW3017925127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.